Le et al v. Zuffa, LLC

Filing 441

LETTER of Request for Documents from Group One Holdings Pte. Ltd. re 440 Order on Motion for Issuance of Letters Rogatory Signed by Magistrate Judge Peggy A. Leen on 6/27/2017. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - JM)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 6 7 8 9 10 Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, and Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, 11 12 13 14 No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Defendant. 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. 1 2 REQUEST FOR INTERNATIONAL JUDICIAL ASSISTANCE PURSUANT TO THE HAGUE CONVENTION OF 18 MARCH 1970 ON THE TAKING OF EVIDENCE ABROAD IN CIVIL OR COMMERCIAL MATTERS 3 4 1. 5 e Honorable Peggy A. Leen, Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court for the District of Nevada 333 South Las Vegas Blvd. Courtroom 3B Las Vegas, NV 89101 Telephone: (702) 464-5400. 6 7 8 9 2. 10 3. 13 Person to whom the executed request is to be returned: Kevin E. Rayhill, c/o Joseph Saveri Law Firm, Inc. 555 Montgomery Street Suite 1210 San Francisco, CA 94111. Telephone: (415) 500-6800 14 15 16 17 Central Authority of the Requested State: Supreme Court of Singapore 1 Supreme Court Lane Singapore 178879 11 12 Sender: 4. 18 Specification of the date by which the requesting authority requires receipt of the response to the Letter of Request: Date: 19 July 27, 2017 20 Reason for urgency: 21 Fact discovery in this litigation closes July 31, 2017, and expert reports (for which these documents are sought) are due August 31, 2017. 22 23 24 25 26 27 IN CONFORMITY WITH ARTICLE 3 OF THE CONVENTION, THE UNDERSIGNED APPLICANT HAS THE HONOUR TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING REQUEST: 5. a Requesting judicial authority: United States District Court for the District of Nevada 28 1 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. 1 5.b 2 3 e Republic of Singapore 5.c 5 7 8 9 Names of the case and any identifying number: Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC, Defendant, Case No. 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-PAL (D. Nev.) 4 6 To the competent authority of: 6. Names and addresses of the parties and their representatives (including representatives in the requested State*) (Article 3, b)) 6.a Plaintiffs 10 Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Brandon Vera, Luis Javier Vazquez, and Kyle Kingsbury, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. 11 Plaintiffs’ Representatives: 12 JOSEPH SAVERI LAW FIRM, INC. Joseph R. Saveri Joshua P. Davis Matthew S. Weiler Kevin E. Rayhill 555 Montgomery Street, Suite 1210 San Francisco, California 94111 Phone: (415) 500-6800/Fax: (415) 395-9940 jsaveri@saverilawfirm.com jdavis@saverilawfirm.com mweiler@saverilawfirm.com krayhill@saverilawfirm.com 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL, PLLC Benjamin D. Brown Richard A. Koffman Dan Silverman 1100 New York Ave., N.W., Suite 500, East Tower Washington, DC 20005 Phone: (202) 408-4600/Fax: (202) 408 4699 bbrown@cohenmilstein.com rkoffman@cohenmilstein.com dsilverman@cohenmilstein.com BERGER & MONTAGUE, P.C. Eric L. Cramer Michael Dell’Angelo Patrick Madden 1622 Locust Street Philadelphia, PA 19103 Phone: (215) 875-3000/Fax: (215) 875-4604 ecramer@bm.net 2 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. 1 mdellangelo@bm.net pmadden@bm.net Co-Lead Counsel for the Classes and Attorneys for Individual and Representative Plaintiffs Cung Le, Nathan Quarry, Jon Fitch, Luis Javier Vazquez, Brandon Vera, and Kyle Kingsbury 2 3 4 6.b Zuffa, LLC, d/b/a the Ultimate Fighting Championship and UFC 5 Defendant’s Representatives: 6 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP William A. Isaacson Nicholas A. Widnell Stacey K. Grigsby 1401 New York Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20005 Tel: (202) 237-2727 Fax: (202) 237-6131 wisaacson@bsfllp.com nwidnell@bsfllp.com sgrigsby@bsfllp.com 7 8 9 10 11 12 BOIES, SCHILLER & FLEXNER LLP Richard J. Pocker (Nevada Bar No. 3568) 300 South Fourth Street, Suite 800 Las Vegas, NV 89101 Tel: (702) 382-7300 Fax: (702) 382-2755 rpocker@bsfllp.com 13 14 15 16 CAMPBELL & WILLIAMS Donald J. Campbell J. Colby Williams 700 South 7th Street Las Vegas, NV 89101 Tel: (702) 382-5222 Fax: (702) 382-0540 djc@campbellandwilliams.com jcw@campbellandwilliams.com 17 18 19 20 21 Counsel for Defendant Zuffa, LLC 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Defendant 6.c Other Parties: Party From Whom Documents Are Sought: Group One Holdings Pte. Ltd. Level 25 One Raffles Quay North Tower Singapore, 048583 3 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. 1 Other Parties’ Representatives: 2 3 Unknown. 7.a 4 Antitrust class action litigation pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2 (the Sherman Act, governing monopolization) and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 (governing class actions). 5 6 7.b 7 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 18 7.c 20 21 23 24 25 26 27 28 Summary of defense: Defendant Zuffa contends there are pro-competitive justifications for its actions, rendering them compliant with antitrust law. Zuffa also contends that Plaintiffs have failed to properly define the relevant product market, and that Plaintiffs have failed to show the anticompetitive effects of Zuffa’s alleged antitrust violations. Zuffa denies that it possesses monopoly power in the market for promoting live elite professional MMA events or monopsony power in the market for purchasing the services of elite professional MMA fighters, and that competition in those markets is robust. 19 22 Summary of complaint: Plaintiffs allege that defendant Zuffa, LLC (“Zuffa”) illegally acquired and maintained monopoly power in the market for promoting live Mixed Martial Arts (“MMA”) events and monopsony power in the market for acquiring the services of elite professional MMA fighters. Zuffa acquired monopoly power by acquiring its closest competitors and denying other MMA promoters access to inputs necessary to compete successfully, such as top fighters and premier venues. Plaintiffs allege that as a result of these anticompetitive actions, Zuffa has no real competitors in the market for producing live elite professional MMA bouts. e lack of true competitors contributes to Zuffa’s monopsony power in the market for purchasing the services of elite professional MMA fighters, because the fighters have few—if any—viable alternatives to signing with Zuffa. As alleged, Zuffa exploits its monopoly and monopsony power to artificially suppress compensation for elite professional MMA fighters by undercompensating them for the use of their services in MMA bouts, and by undercompensating them for the use of their name, sobriquet, voice, persona, signature, likeness and/or biographical information (referred to collectively as their “Identities”) in commercial applications. Plaintiffs consist of two classes: a class of all MMA fighters who fought under contract for Zuffa during the Class Period (December 14, 2010 to the present), and a class of all MMA fighters whose Identities were used for commercial purposes by Zuffa during the Class Period. Plaintiffs seek damages and injunctive relief for violations of United States antitrust law, specifically, Section 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. § 2). 8 17 Nature of the proceedings: 7.d Other necessary information or documents: Not applicable. 8.a Evidence to be obtained or other judicial act to be performed: Group One Holdings Pte. Ltd. (“Group One”) operates an MMA promotion under the name One Championship (formerly known as One Fighting Championship or One FC). Plaintiffs seek quarterly financial statements from Group One, from January 1, 2010 to the present related to Group One’s MMA promotions. ese financial statements should contain at a minimum all revenues related to the operation of One Championship or its predecessors, and all expenses related to the operation of One Championship or its predecessors, including all compensation paid to MMA fighters under contract with One Championship, its predecessors, or Group One. 4 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. 1 8.b 2 Group One Holdings Pte. Ltd. is not a party to the underlying litigation. However, documents produced in the underlying litigation have identified One Championship as a potential competitor to the defendant. ese include statements made by representatives of Group One. Group One’s quarterly financial statements are necessary to establish the relevant product market, and to show that One Championship is not a true competitor to Zuffa. Under United States antitrust law these are necessary to help prove a violation of 15 U.S.C. § 2. See e.g., Yamaha Int'l Corp. v. ABC Int'l Traders, Inc., No. 86-7892 RSWL, 1989 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 16585, at *13 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 1989) (“Before the Rule of Reason can be applied, proper allegations regarding the relevant product market are essential. e relevant product market is the particular group of products and the geographic area in which the products compete and the challenged restraint will apply. Proper market delineation is necessary to a Rule of Reason analyses to identify such factors as competitive conditions within the industry, comparative market positions of the defendants and their competitors, and to measure the impact of the challenged restraint.”). Because Zuffa and Group One have both contended that One Championship is a competitor to Zuffa, Group One’s evidence is relevant and necessary for Plaintiffs to fully and fairly prosecute their claims. 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 9. 12 13 10. 11. 17 19 22 23 24 12. 27 28 Any requirement that the evidence be given on oath or affirmation and any special form to be used: Not applicable. 13. Special methods or procedure to be followed: Not applicable. 14. 25 26 Documents or other property to be inspected: One Championship’s per-event financial data and per-event per-fighter compensation data. 20 21 Questions to be put to the persons to be examined or statement of the subject-matter about which they are to be examined: Not applicable. 15 18 Identity and address of any person to be examined: Not applicable. 14 16 Purpose of the evidence or judicial act sought: Request for notification of the time and place for the execution of the Request and identity and address of any person to be notified: Not applicable. 15. Request for attendance or participation of judicial personnel of the requesting authority at the execution of the Letter of Request: Not applicable. 5 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD. 1 16. 2 Not applicable. 3 4 5 6 7 Specification of privilege or duty to refuse to give evidence under the law of the State of origin: 17. e fees and costs incurred which are reimbursable under the second paragraph of Article 14 or under Article 26 of the Convention will be borne by* Not applicable. DATE OF REQUEST: June 27, 2017 8 9 SIGNATURE AND SEAL OF THE REQUESTING AUTHORITY 10 11 12 13 e Honorable Peggy A. Leen Magistrate Judge for the United States District Court District of Nevada 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 Case No.: 2:15-cv-01045-RFB-(PAL) PLAINTIFFS’ LETTER OF REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS FROM GROUP ONE HOLDINGS PTE. LTD.

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?